, 1887-10-28
THE ANARCHISTS.
Application Made for a Writ
Of Error.
Arguments for the Defense
Opened by Tucker.
General Hunt Speaks
for the State.
The Arguments Commenced.

NphSAiS "a " nay upOu a DCll-
ton for a writ of error in the Chicago an
archists' case attracted to the capital a
crowd of eager people, who seemed as
anxious to gain admission to the court
room as ii the anarchists themselves were
to be present in chains, and to argue
their W case in person. More than an
hour before court assembled the court
room was densely packed with people.
Even out in the corridor there was n
crowd, endeavoring at least to get a
glimpse of the interior of the court room.
The audience was destined, however, to
be at least for a time disappointed. When
court was called to order at noon, and the
candidates for admission to the bar had
been sworn, the chief justice announced
that the court would proceed with the I'M
finished business of yesterday.
About l o'clock Mr.. Tucker opened the
argument in support of the petition for a
writ of error in the case of the Chicago
anarchists. He said it was not necessary
for him to show as a condition for a pre-
cedent to the granting of a writ that the
action o mplained of in the court below
was actually repugnant to or in violation
of the constitution. 1t was only neces-
sary to show that a conflict had arisen and
that there was a question whether the
action complained of was not repugnant
to the constitution. That was enough to
give this court Jurisdiction. 1t was not
necessary to show the repugnancy, but
only the conflict. If there is a conflict,
then this court has jurisdiction, and if it
has jurisdiction the petitioners are entitled
to a writ as a right policy.
This court, he said, had been known to
deal literally with petitions for writs of
error in. civil cases. How much more
should it deal literally with a petition for
a writ of error in a criminal case involving
the Issues of life and death, and in a
case where life was about to be taken
away in violation of the constitution.
Proceeding then to the merits of the
case, Tucker said it was not necessary that
a Law of a state should be abso-
~lutely, and on its face, unconstitutional,
in order 10 give this court Jurisdiction OF
the case under it. If the law. seemingly
fair and Just on its face, should nave put
upon 1t by state courts a construction con
trarY to the constitution, that was enough
to give this court jurisdiction. Tucker
then reviewed the history of the adoption
of the fourteenth amendment, and said
that although it was originally Intended to
guarantee particularly the rights of en-
f%ranchised blacks, there was no reason
why white citizens should not enjoy the
benefit of its provisions. Tucker quoted
the fourteenth amendment and discussed
the meaning of the words due process
of law" and said that although it had
been held by this court that trial without
indictment by grand jury might be due
process of law" and might be perfectly
constitutional, it had never been held or
admitted that trial by petit jury could be
dispensed with.
Tucker then asserted that the jury law
OF Illinois was unconstitutional, in that
it provided that the forming of an opinion
from reports or from newspaper counts
of certain transactions should not neces-
sarily disqualiiy a person having such
opinion from sitting in Judgment on that
transaction as a Juror. lie then referred
to the objections made by the defense at
the trial to the rulings OF court in the
matter of challenges, to the refusal of
the court on the motion for a new trial to
hear evidence going to show that the
bailiff had said that 1.-THE men he had
selected for n panel would be certain to
hang" and to various other rulings and
decisions of the court which had the effect
of denying to the prisoners a fair trial by
an impartial Jury.
Turning then to another question raised
by the case which, he said, was a new one
in this court, he quoted the second clause
of the fourteenth amendment to the effect
that no state shall make or enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities OF citizens of the United
States. Among the privileges and i'm
munities" thus guaranteed by the four
teenth amendment were, he commended,
those set forth in the first ten amend
ments to the federal constitution. 1t has
been maintained, he said, that these first
ten amendments to the constitution were
Limitations of federal power only. But it
was his belief that unless the privileges
and %immunities were specifically said 10 be
merely limitations Of federal power, they
were privileges and immunities which
came within purview of the fourteenth
amendment and were guaranteed by it.
Chief Justice Waite-Then you would
bring all the questions to this court?
Tucker-I cannot conceive of any ques
ton which cannot be brought here if the
fourteenth amendment makes the ''prIvi-
leges and immunities' to which it refers
include all those first ten amendments.
In conclusion, Tucker said we have the
right in my judgment to be heard on the
the question whether the constitution has
been violated in order to compass he con
viction Of these men. 1t is true that they
are said to be anarchists, Dut tney are
men and are entitled to the same protec-
ton that ! am. | know of no anarchy
abroad in this land which American peo-
pie need fear, except anarchy in the adj
ministratlon Of Justice. | pray the court
will therefore award this writ, for if do
not mistake there are evidences in the
whole record which will demand a re-
versal of Judgment
Attorney General Hunt then addressed
the court in behalf of the state, and IN
opposition to the motion for II writ OF
error. To warrant the issuance of a writ
it must appear, he said, from the record,
first, that there is a federal question in
volved. and second, that such a question
was raised and decided in the state court:
He was not as well informed as he would
like to be in regard to the exact points in
which counsel for the petitioners relied.
In the first part of his argument Tucker